Democracy and Solidarity: On the Cultural Roots of America's Political Crisis

by James Davison Hunter

The long-developing cultural divisions beneath our present political crisis
 
Liberal democracy in America has always contained contradictions—most notably, a noble but abstract commitment to freedom, justice, and equality that, tragically, has seldom been realized in practice. While these contradictions have caused dissent and even violence, there has always been an underlying and evolving solidarity drawn from the cultural resources of America’s “hybrid Enlightenment.”
 
James Davison Hunter, who introduced the concept of “culture wars” thirty years ago, tells us in this new book that the historic sources of national solidarity have largely dissolved. While a deepening political polarization is the most obvious sign of this, the true problem is not polarization per se but the absence of cultural resources to work through what divides us. All political regimes require some level of consensus. If it cannot be generated organically, it will be imposed coercively.
 
Can America’s political crisis be fixed? Can an Enlightenment-era institution—liberal democracy—survive and thrive in a post-Enlightenment world? If, for some, salvaging the older sources of national solidarity is neither possible sociologically, nor desirable politically or ethically, what cultural resources will fund liberal democracy going forward?

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Sociology, Philosophy, Christian, Social Justice

504 pages, Hardcover

Published April 23, 2024

About the author

James Davison Hunter is the Labrosse-Levinson Distinguished Professor of Religion, Culture, and Social Theory at the University of Virginia and Executive Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture.

Reviews

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 5 out of 5]

James Davison Hunter is one of those rare scholarly giants who is also a Christian but who does not specialize in theology or biblical studies (Hunter and the late, great Timothy Keller were both members of the "Dogwood Fellowship," a select group of Christian clergy, academics and businessmen who read landmark books by the likes of Robert Bellah, Charles Taylor, etc...). Hunter coined the term "culture wars" (which is also the title of his most famous book) and he has written perceptively about the USA's evolving sociocultural landscape, including in 'Democracy and Solidarity: On the Cultural Roots of America's Political Crisis.'

In this book, he looks further back than he has before, chronicling how from its founding and throughout its history, the USA was marked by a "hybrid-Enlightenment" that mixed reason, pragmatism, and democracy alongside enduring qualities derived from (largely Protestant) Christianity. America's aspiration to be a diverse nation (exemplified in the motto "E pluribus unum) has largely been just that - aspirational - because throughout its history the USA has marginalized Native Americans, blacks, women, and sexual minorities. But in recent decades this hybrid-Enlightenment has been dissolving, so much so that Americans with vastly different beliefs are finding it increasingly impossible to come together to dialogue around contentious political, moral, and cultural issues.

As Hunter journeys from America's founding to the early twenty-first century he draws upon key figures who articulated public philosophies and shaped the culture around them, such as Lyman Beecher, Phoebe Palmer, Frederick Douglass, John Dewey, Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Luther King Jr., Richard Rorty, Richard John Neuhaus, Cass Sunstein, Adrian Vermeule, Chantal Mouffe, and others.

This tome offers an abundance of insights and its difficult in a review to capture all of them. Hunter's coverage of American politics in the early twenty-first century, specifically the Trump era, is quite cogent (though as Rod Dreher commented somewhere on Twitter, Hunter is soft on the media; the pundits today who look back fondly on Mitt Romney and John McCain as genial conservative standard-bearers excoriated them in their heydays). Hunter points out that part of the working class' shift to the populist right is due to the fact that the Democrats' base has also changed from organized labour to college/university-educated upper classes who imbibe left-wing tenets from liberal academia; a working-class Italian Catholic teamster in Boston no doubt sees the world in very different ways from a secular non-binary gender studies major at Berkeley.

Anything James Davison Hunter writes is worth reading but 'Democracy and Solidarity' really seems like a capstone to a "trilogy" that began with 'Culture Wars' in 1991 and which continued with 'To Change the World' in 2010, especially for Christian audiences. This book will be one to study and engage with as America slouches towards yet other divisive election and an uncertain political future.

[Russell Fox · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a partly brilliant book, and the only reason why I call it "partly" is because Hunter thoroughly situates himself in the role of the critic of the history and condition of American nationality, which he sees as suffering badly; he recognizes that there are genuine efforts of repair of our political culture taking place in localities across the country, but dismisses them as too little, too late, thereby completing eliding the possibility that it is the scale of America's polity that is most in need of historical investigation and critique. That said, taking America as a the singular, liberal democratic entity which Hunter (and, to be fair, practically every other serious cultural historian) does, this book is crammed with wonderful passages, important insights, valuable historical observations, and provocative readings of our current intellectual, cultural, and political condition.

Probably the most important of Hunter's arguments, I think, is his claim that what made America's liberal democratic mythos hold together for so long is the fact that the actual meanings and implications of the cultural underpinnings of that mythos were unarticulated, opaque, entirely implicit. This sort of purposeful vagueness is what allowed people who approached America's "hybrid Enlightenment" (a mash-up of pragmatic reason and Christian religion) with very different aims and priorities to nonetheless describe, and re-describe what it meant to be an American in wholly original ways, allowing for adaptation as time went by. The fact that that adaptation no longer seems to be taking place (at least not on the national scale) can be attributed to many things, but perhaps to no one thing as much as the complete upending America's habits of democratic discourse, thanks to technological changes (and the economic changes which impelled them); we are awash in knowledge, good and bad, real and fake, and as such the productive opacity, the willingness on some level to accept that someone who wants to calls themselves an American must have some grounding to do so, even if we're collectively unsure what that might be, which once obtained is gone. Hunter is says he's yet full of hope for the American experiment, but on the basis of this book, the solidarity we need has likely been talked to death, and it's not clear how we could again become so comfortably ignorant of others' agendas, intentions, identities, and more, to give it the quiet it needs to come back to life.

[Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hunter contends that our society cannot long function as a democracy unless there is a significant solidarity of belief among its citizens. A deep seated agreement on fundamentals. Unfortunately, the progressive erosion of cultural and ideological solidarity does not bode well for the republic. Hunter’s historical and political analysis here is excellent, and the dearth of proferred solutions makes it all the more sobering, but he believes the first step is a clear-eyed assessment and understanding of the problem.

I asked ChatGPT for a summary and critique of this book and here is the response.
It’s surprisingly (frighteningly?) good. I’m not sure why I should go to the trouble of texting out book reviews anymore—I can just ask AI to do the work for me.
Heck, I might not even need to bother reading books anymore. Banish the thought!

[Benjamin Ball]

Not great!

[Mark Caleb Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

James Davison Hunter's Democracy and Solidarity is an unsettling, but persuasive, picture of America in the grips of the culture war. Democracy depends on solidarity to function. Solidarity is not the same as consensus, which can be rational, but is a sense of reality that is shared by the population. Without a sufficient amount of solidarity, self-government becomes unworkable, which is where it feels like America is at the moment.

Hunter argues that America has been riven from the start. It was a hybrid of Enlightenment tendencies and a deeply religious context. This conflict yielded dramatic pronouncements, like "all men are created equal," and principles, that governments derive their "just powers from the consent of the governed," but in a setting of significant exclusion. The gap between what was promised and what was real created conflict, which necessitated "working through" and "boundary work," where politics had to resolve these disputes. This pattern repeats throughout American history, for Hunter, and America is often reimagined as a result. Hunter highlights these "reimaginations" by opposing key thinkers to one another, not by pretending they drive the culture, but that they are reflective of transitions taking place. Hunter compares Dewey and Niebuhr, for example, as they grapple with industrialization, competing views of human nature, and the transformation of the world in the early 20th century.

Hunter believes America was able to work through its competing claims somewhat effectively because there was sufficient solidarity, grounded in the basic commitment to America as an ideal, from which to argue, contest, win, and lose. Hunter argues that Martin Luther King, Jr., was the last American leader able to speak persuasively to most of America by appealing to a commonly held set of commitments. Even if competing conceptions of those commitments existed, they were still grounded within an essential fealty to America's creed.

Those days are long departed. Hunter documented the beginning of the end of American solidarity in The Culture Wars, more than three decades ago. America's competing groups share so little common ground that they now routinely dehumanize the "other" as they lean into authoritarianism, which is the only means by which to impose their will on the other side. Hunter traces the gradual renunciation of the American creed by the right and the left. Richard Rorty, Charles Kesler, Cass Sunstein, and Adrian Vermeule all reflect this shift away from the bindings of consent, rights for all, and persuasion. In different manners, they all decided their conception of the good could only be imposed through a reconfiguration of politics. Unlike in the past, the reconfiguration was outside the guardrails of the Constitution and liberalism.

Our democracy is exhausted, Hunter believes, and there are no simple fixes. Institutional reform is not enough. Civic education is insufficient (even if we could agree on what the content might be). Hunter's last chapter, Coda, is hopeful but not optimistic. His hope is primarily religious, but it also rests on the sheer number of Americans who still value the nation, its government, and its ideals. Reform efforts, however, are likely to fail as they run up against a passively nihilistic set of elite institutions that dominate the discourse--parties, bureaucrats, elected officials, media and social media, and popular culture. Hunter's sense of change is not really a path, much less a blueprint, but an articulation of the necessary conditions. Americans must recognize the humanity of others, cast a vision for the public good that is inclusive, and set the parameters of politics so that enemies become opponents, and its goals are more limited. This would require, perhaps more than anything, leaders willing to be different, take risks, and build toward a positive future.

Democracy and Solidarity is clearly the product of a lifetime of work. The breadth and depth of knowledge is impressive. Even when treating a diverse set of thinkers, Hunter appears to be on solid ground. The book is accessible enough to those who lean into it, but it is not written for a general audience. It is a scholarly tome, but it is not excessively technical. He explains concepts and draws from an array of disciplines as he does so. A background in American intellectual history and/or political thought will be most helpful.

This is a fantastic book. I am still processing potential criticisms. As someone who takes politics seriously, I have a hard time arguing against his conclusion that we are exhausted culturally. I may have slightly more hope that some institutional reforms could matter, especially if we could reconsider our approach to representation, reinvigorate our parties, and provide more electoral incentives for candidates to tilt more toward the middle and away from the extremes. But even as I type, these things feel too cosmetic and not cultural enough.

The way forward for Christians is not all that different, I suspect, than what it should have been for the history of the church--to live together in such a manner that we point those around us toward God and not away from him. Hunter's work should help us understand our context as we minister, but also how to approach politics in a way that is good not only for ourselves but for our nation. Saying that and doing it, however, are very different things. The first step, I think, is a recognition that we are part of the problem. The hope, though, is that Christianity provides a better framework for politics than the world at the moment. Drawing on that, instead of our exhausted culture's excuse for politics, would be a start.

[Lauren Crider · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hunter did a fantastic job of synthesizing American history in relation to democracy and solidarity while also not pushing one agenda for our current problems as a nation. I specifically enjoyed the focus on hope at the end.

[Fr. Jeffrey Moore · Rating 5 out of 5]

An insightful work of historical political philosophy. Helped me better articulate the underlying forces in American democracy, beneath the partisan binary.

In fact, Hunter was extemely studied in not falling into bias. I was waiting the entire book for the shoe to drop to one side or another, but it never did.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this ambitious work of cultural sociology, James Davison Hunter offers an analysis of American cultural breakdown through the lens of what he terms the "Hybrid Enlightenment" (HE) - a deep cultural formation combining religious truth claims with Enlightenment rationality. This hybrid has historically provided moral authority by offering principles that could ground both religious and secular understandings of rights, justice, and civic virtue. Hunter traces its evolution from Protestant-Enlightenment foundations through Christian and ultimately Judeo-Christian iterations, showing how it adapted while attempting to maintain core metaphysical, epistemological, and moral foundations.

Hunter's historical narrative begins with the melding of Protestant millennialism and Enlightenment elements in a hybrid yielding American exceptionalism, evident in references to John Winthrop's "City on a Hill" metaphor and the 19th century idea of manifest destiny. But for all the shared cultural assumptions operative in the 19th century, none of it could preserve cultural unity in the conflicts between North and South which led to the Civil War. This is where Hunter identifies the first "unraveling" or collapse of the Hybrid Enlightenment which had supposedly underwritten American political and social cohesion and solidarity.

The failure of the HE to contain cultural contradictions exposes the need to attempt to "rework the boundaries" of inclusion and exclusion. Who counts as fully human? Do African Americans deserve citizenship? These questions, Hunter argues, could not be settled by appeals to the deep and shared cultural resources of the Hybrid Enlightenment. After all, both North and South drew on the same Bible, same religion, and same constitution, yet reached irreconcilable positions, indeed incommensurable worldviews. This breakdown required extensive cultural "boundary work" to rebuild potentially workable foundations for social solidarity.

Hunter traces this reconstruction through key intellectual voices who attempted to renegotiate the relationship between religious and secular authority. His method involves deliberate pairings of these voices, typically presenting one figure representing a more secular and left-leaning vision of the HE alongside another drawing on more conservative and religiously informed tropes. A significant 20th century pairing that sets the stage for later developments is that between John Dewey and Reinhold Niebuhr.

However, Hunter's characterization of Dewey as simply championing "scientific method" misses the sophistication of Dewey's pragmatic approach. Far from being a naive positivist, Dewey rejected foundationalist accounts of knowledge, arguing instead for "warranted assertability" rather than absolute truth. His democratic experimentalism wasn't based on scientific certainty but on pragmatic engagement with concrete problems. Niebuhr's critique of Deweyan "optimism" as naive thus partially misses its mark - Dewey's view was already more nuanced regarding human limitations and the contingency of knowledge. Nevertheless, Niebuhr's Christian Realism, with its emphasis on human sinfulness and the persistence of conflict, provided an important counterpoint that influenced later attempts to stabilize the hybrid cultural formation.

Figures like Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (The Vital Center) and Walter Lippmann attempted to stabilize this tension through various forms of liberal consensus during the Cold War. Hunter sees these as ultimately too "shallow" to provide a resilient cultural backdrop against which our politics could play out.

The Civil Rights movement, particularly through Martin Luther King Jr., represents both the pinnacle and beginning of the end for the Hybrid Enlightenment's effective cultural authority. King masterfully deployed both Niebuhrian tragic realism about human nature and Deweyan progressive hopes for democratic transformation. He could appeal simultaneously to religious conscience and constitutional principles, to both moral absolutes and pragmatic reform. Yet this very success contained the seeds of transformation - as the movement evolved, newer voices questioned whether appeals to shared cultural authority merely masked deeper power relations. The resulting shift toward politics of identity marked not just a tactical change but a fundamental questioning of whether any shared cultural framework could address systematic oppression.

Hunter sees the HE increasingly strained by tensions he illustrates through opposing ideologues who simply cannot agree on crucial matters such as constitutional interpretation. His comparison of Richard Neuhaus and Laurence Tribe reveals the growing impossibility of reconciling religious and secular sources of authority. While Neuhaus grounded constitutional interpretation in natural law and divine authority, Tribe's "invisible constitution" suggested evolving principles of justice without transcendent foundations. Yet rather than simply representing a failure of shared understanding, this difference might suggest the inevitable plurality of interpretive frameworks in a large, dynamic and diverse democracy.

Even more strained is Hunter's attempt to create equivalence between Adrian Vermeule's Catholic integralism and Cass Sunstein's behavioral economics--treating both as dystopian forms of technocracy. While Vermeule explicitly advocates using state power to impose religious doctrine, Sunstein's "nudge" theory has the far less dictatorial goal of using choice architecture to influence small decisions in ways thought to be more constructive (e.g. automatically enrolling employees in a pension plan with an opt-out option, or placing "healthy choice" options prominently on a menu). There are questions of interfering in minor ways with the agency of individual decision makers that Sunstein has acknowledged and written about.However, to treat both as equally threatening to democratic norms requires overlooking major differences in the kinds and degrees of power involved. Namely, mandating top-down theocracy in one case, and modifying the way in which consensual choices are made on the other.

The breakdown reaches its apex in Hunter's contrast between Richard Rorty's anti-foundational liberalism and various right wing Claremont Institute intellectuals who explicitly reject liberal democratic norms. While he provides extensive evidence of right-wing rejection of democratic principles - from Gingrich's systematic delegitimization of opponents (in a list of epithets for democrats which he circulated to Republicans in the 90s) through Michael Anton's "Flight 93" essay comparing Republicans to hostages who must "storm the cockpit" - his treatment of left authoritarianism relies almost entirely on Rorty's philosophical anti-foundationalism. The claim that Rorty's skepticism about metaphysical foundations somehow enabled later authoritarian tendencies he explicitly opposed strains credibility.

More importantly, Hunter's own evidence suggests that metaphysically privileged cultural foundations may create rather than solve the problems of democratic societies. Particularly telling is his treatment of Rorty, whom he credits with warning against "the cruelties that always result from a clash of cosmologies [i.e. world-views]." Yet Hunter doesn't engage with the implications of this insight - that seeking absolute, authoritative foundations and totalizing world views/ 'cosmologies' might exacerbate rather than ameliorate cultural conflict.

The tension in Hunter's analysis becomes clear in his attempt to describe a cultural foundation that is both flexible enough to adapt to social change and firm enough to provide transcendent authority. While he recognizes the need for cultural resources to evolve (as in the expansion from Protestant to Judeo-Christian frameworks), he insists these changes must maintain metaphysical, epistemological, and moral foundations. Yet his own historical examples suggest such foundations often fail precisely when most needed - during periods of serious cultural conflict.

This points toward an alternative understanding of how cultural resources function in democratic societies. As legal scholar Edward Levi noted in his 1949 classic, Introduction to Legal Reasoning, the ambiguity of key concepts in democratic discourse isn't a weakness but a strength. If meanings had to be completely fixed,he writes, "society would be impossible." This suggests that cultural cohesion in diverse democracies might come not from shared foundations but from the capacity to draw on somewhat ambiguous and general cultural vocabularies to maintain meaningful political community despite fundamental disagreements. The assumption that we even *can* have an implicit background consensus on first principles in a complex and diverse democracy may not be warranted. The attempt to conjure one up and attribute to it authority over national culture may well have the effect of aggravating and not healing divisions.

Hunter's analysis thus reveals an ironic truth opposite to his intended conclusion: Democratic societies might require not stronger foundations but greater capacity for handling the inevitable contestation of meaning. In dismissing this possibility, he misses the insight embedded in his own analysis - that cultural resources work not by providing foundational truth claims but by offering flexible, shared reference points for the ongoing negotiation of shared life. If a strong and comprehensive foundation for deep culture could not prevent a civil war, and if it could not harmonize contesting voices in the wake of the civil rights movement, then it is fair to ask, "How strong and reliable *was* this alleged Hybrid-Enlightenment whose demise Hunter so fervently mourns?

[John Shelton · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was published earlier this year and hardly anyone noticed. And yet, it is Hunter’s best book, synthesizing his decades-worth of writings even as it treads substantial new ground, especially with regard to the transformations of the 19th and 20th centuries.

This is a work that could only have been written by a serious scholar approaching his seventies. It should be considered essential reading for anyone who wants to think seriously about the political conflicts America must surmount if our noble experiment is to survive past this century.

[Derek Kreider · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think this is a fitting assessment of where our culture is in regard to epistemology and politics. I agree with the authors on what may be their most important point, that culture precedes politics. Legislation doesn’t do what everyone thinks it does, yet everyone tries to pursue it.

[Joe · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very hard to follow at times. I find this to be consistent with other books I have read by this author like "To Change the World".

That being said the 1st part of book with discussion of how culture is framed is difficult to grab. The parts where history is followed is easier and more applicable. The roots of our republic through the great awakenings, civil war, secularization all make sense and show the changes our country has endured and how we balanced the facts with our myths. For example discusses how different groups handled the statements in the constitution about freedom and justice for all and the presence of slavery. This is discussed from both black and white views.

Chapters include:
chapter 4 -how America is a Hybrid-Enlightenment - This was unique in all the world - not exactly like Europe

chapter 6 -The effects of religion on nation building and America's roll in end times
chapter 7 - turn to secularism and how a fully dualistic culture developed with the industrialization of country.

Now at chapter 11 - I keep feeling like this book should have some great meaning and I just am missing it. While I agree with some of the observations and assessments of our culture and world i cannot get over some blatant biases. In this chapter when you quote the Washington post and Buzzfeed as good sources to judge say president Trump I get a little nauseated. For example he says that Trump more than any president in the past devalued institutions like the CIA, Media and justice departments. Could it be that these really are corrupt and not worth valuing in there current form. One other example is the reference to Jan 6 as a low water mark of how he rallied the right to not accept 2020 elections. He statement is that it was just that he could not accept defeat. Maybe it was that things really were rigged and corrupt in the election. Take things like handling of Hunter Biden laptop. The use of every means in congress to impeach and even stop Trump from running.
Now we also have added history of multiple assassination attempts of candidate Trump. Many on the left has called for this in overt and subtle terms.

It may be that this shows what Hunter points out that I am just too political and captured by the right, now sure but not sure how else to judge his material. The absence of truth and truth telling and even the ability of society to believe we can arrive at truth has dealt a tragic blow to humanity.

Just when I thought book might be a waste of my time chapter 12 gives me some hope and has some things that ring true to my ears. The description of Nihilism is the best I have seen while I admit I have not read a lot on the subject. His definition or themes of Nihilism are:
1. epistemological failure - there are no truths, no way of knowing them. Every truth is necessarily false.
2. ethical incoherence - we are at an end to the moral interruption of the world. There are no absolute ethical values.
3. existential despair - The world and life are void of any significance or purpose, therefore all is pointless.
4. political annihilation - obliterate all that obstructs the will to power. The ultimate end of philosophy of survival of the fittest.

Then comes discussion of the paradox of Nihilism without many Nihilists. This seems to mean no one lives by the true beliefs of Nihilism.

So this chapter then goes on to say that this Nihilistic philosophy has led to a new common core or things our culture agrees on:
1. Resentment - Victimology at its apex.
2. Narratives of Injury - this drives strong feelings and becomes institutionalized.
3. Negation and the Ethics of Revenge - developing an object for revenge.
4. Outrage as Authority - Rage against injury and perpetrators emerges as authority.
5. Injury and Identity - folks who are injured or think injured group together in a club

The unintended consequences of all this is factorization of nation. This leads to goal of Annihilation of all who are objects of your victimology.


We Can’t Build Political Solidarity from Cultural Rubble
Review: ‘Democracy and Solidarity’ by James Davison Hunter
April 24, 2024 | Bob Thune

“Democracy in America is in crisis.” So begins James Davison Hunter’s new book Democracy and Solidarity: On the Cultural Roots of America’s Political Crisis. Few readers would disagree with his assertion.

Amid the crisis, American Christians have rediscovered political theology. From Catholic integralism to post-liberalism to Christian nationalism, we’re awash in proposals for a new political future. But Hunter first wants us to reassess our present problem. In his telling, our primary challenges are cultural, not political.

Contrary to the voices on both left and right who assert our troubled democracy can be repaired through “political will and smart public policy,” Hunter argues the problem is deeper: “We no longer have the cultural resources to work through what divides us” (18). If his reasoning is correct, our societal illness is more advanced and our moment more urgent than we realize.

Is there a future for liberal democracy? Perhaps not. But if there is, it lies along the path of repairing and rebuilding our culture’s deep structures.


As his book’s title suggests, Hunter frames the problem of modern democracy in terms of solidarity. We tend to think of solidarity as the willingness to come together with other people. But Hunter argues that “solidarity . . . is about the cultural preconditions and the normative sources that make coming together possible in the first place” (xii). He’s not arguing Americans don’t want to come together. He’s arguing we’ve lost the cultural resources that make coming together possible.

He’s not arguing Americans don’t want to come together. He’s arguing we’ve lost the cultural resources that make coming together possible.

Hunter is one of America’s most eminent sociologists. Since 1983, he’s held a teaching post at the University of Virginia, and in 1995, he founded the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the same institution. Like his mentor Peter Berger, he’s taken a keen interest in the problem of moral order. His 1991 book Culture Wars catapulted that term into our national consciousness, and his 2010 work To Change the World was the most provocative analysis of Christian cultural engagement since Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture. Democracy and Solidarity applies his trademark emphasis on the “deep structures of culture” to our failing political ecosystem.

America’s motto is e pluribus unum, “out of many, one.” How much pluribus is allowed within the unum? And how do the boundaries of the unum work against the pluribus? These questions have been repeatedly confronted during our national history, and our ability to work through them has made American democracy resilient. But the cultural framework that has underwritten our ability to cooperate is beginning to unravel. Hunter writes,

For quite some time, the culture that has underwritten liberal democracy in America (and in Europe too) has been unraveling. The cultural sources that made it possible in the first place have, in the most elemental ways, dissolved, and all of the efforts to reconfigure and revivify those cultural sources over the decades . . . have [failed]. (49)

American Christians have a bad habit of fixating on culture-war issues at a surface level. Hunter’s analysis takes us deeper, inviting us to see the erosion of our frameworks for meaning. Once, we shared a “background consensus” about issues of knowledge, purpose, and ethics. The loss of those shared ideals is the real story underneath our political polarization.

Five Key Movements
We can summarize Hunter’s story about the decay of American democracy in five basic movements.

1. It started with a ‘hybrid-Enlightenment.’
This is Hunter’s term for the unique recipe of ideas that birthed American democracy. The British and Scottish Enlightenment, the classical natural-law tradition, Greek and Roman republicanism, Protestant Calvinism, and Puritan millennialism all melded together in “a lively and evolving syncretism.” These are the ideals we’ve been fighting over ever since, and they’re the basis for our cultural solidarity.

2. The hybrid-Enlightenment gave us a framework for ‘working through’ our differences.
Hunter deploys the concept of “working through” (borrowed from the field of psychiatry) to describe “the dynamics by which cultures work through their contradictions historically and sociologically” (28). For example, America was founded on the premise that all people are created equal. In practice, we’ve never lived up to that vision. Our national history is the story of how we’ve tried to “work through” that contradiction to achieve solidarity.

3. Over time, our cultural logic has changed.
In our disagreements about social and political issues, Americans have always shared a “cultural logic” that allowed us to make sense of our differences and argue meaningfully about them. But the cultural logic of liberal democracy, rooted in hybrid-Enlightenment ideals, has gradually been supplanted by the cultural logic of nihilism:

Critique and blame are totalizing. Nuance and complexity are minimized. . . . Every group defines itself against some other group, the net effect of which is the destruction of common life. (335)

4. As a result, the deep structures of our culture have eroded.
The surface-level dysfunction in our society is merely a symptom. The real problem is a fracture in the “deep structures” of our culture: our assumptions about metaphysics (what is real), epistemology (how we know), anthropology (what is a human), ethics (how humans should act), and teleology (what it all means). Hunter writes, “American public life is divided . . . not only in its vocabulary, but in its premises about what is real and true and how we know these things, about what is right and just, and about what the nation is and what it should be” (324).

5. We’re now at a point of exhaustion.
Late-stage democracy has suffered “a great unraveling”; we’re facing societal exhaustion. The hybrid-Enlightenment ideals that once united us have lost their force. Our cultural resources for working through differences have been depleted. Both left and right have abandoned the pursuit of solidarity through persuasion or compromise. This unraveling didn’t happen overnight; there’s a history here, and Hunter spends the bulk of his book walking the reader through it. But the result is “a weakening of liberal democracy’s cultural infrastructure” (292).

Is There a Way Forward?
For Hunter, the key to the issue isn’t the past; it’s the present. His discussion of current conditions will most benefit the patient reader. Hunter sees the same things you see: political polarization, identity politics, authoritarian impulses on the right and left, a media environment that rewards outrage, a public culture of anger and victimhood. As you’d expect from much of Hunter’s earlier work, it doesn’t lend itself to direct practical application. But if you’ve followed his argument thus far, he hopes you’ll begin to see these realities in a different light.

Both left and right have abandoned the pursuit of solidarity through persuasion or compromise.

And that, it seems, is Hunter’s project. He wants us to attend to the cultural roots of America’s political crisis (as the book’s subtitle states). Without minimizing the important role of law and public policy, Hunter wants to elevate our attentiveness to the health (or unhealth) of our public culture.

Instead of being co-opted into the culture wars, thoughtful Christians have an opportunity to rehabilitate the deep structures of American culture. But we’ll only give ourselves to that work if we reject the logic of nihilism and embrace the possibility of a common good.

Hunter’s hope—stated briefly in a coda that follows the last chapter—is for “a paradigm shift within liberal democracy itself” that would lead to a reinvigorated liberalism. I’m more inclined to surmise liberalism has run its course and that our future lies in a more post-liberal direction. But even where I disagree with his solutions, I’m provoked by Hunter’s analysis of the problem.

Democracy and Solidarity offers a trenchant examination of our cultural rupture that’s alarming, informative, and interesting. It’s a book we’ll be arguing about for years to come.

[Mark Seeley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I try to read everything James Davison Hunter puts in print. JDH tells the reader that this volume is sort of a bookend to his 1991 book, 'Culture Wars.' 'Democracy and Solidarity' is deep, nuanced, complex, and persuasive. There are themes that intersect previous volumes such as 'To Change the World.'

Hunter takes off with a historical survey that highlights particular key figures in the how culture has changed (declined). The comparisons and juxtaposed perspectives between thinkers and activists like John Dewey and Rienhold Niebuhr, Richard Neuhaus and Richard Rorty, MLK Jr. and Walter Lippmann highlight the vastly different presuppositions and antagonistic perspectives that brought about change in the political landscape of America. Hunter understands that cultural problems demand cultural solutions, not political ones.

An important chapter is where JDH discusses the cultural logic of nihilism and 'ressentiment' that destroys any semblance of a common culture or solidarity. This has given way to cancel culture. And this opens up to the threat of authoritarianism and the struggle for power.

This is not a hopeful book, to say the least. But JDH does provide hope if our moral imagination can rise above the bickering sides in the culture war. He calls for a "renewed ethical vision" for the "reformation of public life." Here he echos Niebuhr. This a book that will require a second reading.

[Daniel Wells · Rating 3 out of 5]

(To improve solidarity and preserve democracy) “there are, undoubtedly, many such practices, some of which resonate with practical proposals recommended by others and touched upon earlier in the book. Among these would certainly be an absolute and universal condemnation of political violence. A fundamental premise of democracy is that one does not kill another of differences; rather, one talks through those differences - seriously and substantively.”

“We should recognize that the most serious culture war we face at present is not against the ‘other side’ but against the nihilism that insinuates itself in the symbolic, institutional, and practical patterns of the late modern world, not least its politics.”

Good book. Probably could’ve been 30% shorter. But mostly thought provoking.

[Buddy Lewis · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a extremely thought-provoking book that builds the historical case for our present political situation. Balanced in its presentation between both sides of our current divide, Hunter does not give a simple answer to our pathway forward. Our answers, from his perspective, do not lie with laws and policies from our institutions, but individual responsibility and mutual dialogue ,founded on a respect for diverse points of view and a goal of the greater good. I thought his analysis of our culture of victimhood was insightful and often overlooked in cultural analysis. Not a easy read but well worth the time invested.

[Neal Leavell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why does the future of American democracy look questionable? James Hunter does not blame any specific personalities or political ideologies. Hunter convincingly argues that the American democratic system was developed and depends upon a general agreement within the population in the philosophic perspective of either the Christian or secular enlightenment. Implicit in that perspective is the agreement that certain universal values exist. Those values can be discerned by either religious revelation or rational thought. As that agreement disappears from American culture, the future of democracy looks bleak.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 4 out of 5]

The historical criticism and analysis in this book are superb (basically the whole middle section) and profound. If that were the entire book, it would be easily 5 stars. The final section really faltered for me, though, as it felt like a mishmash of barely-connected essays that didn't carry through the full promise of the overarching argument of the book. Still very much worth reading and wrestling with.

Full video review here: https://youtu.be/yfeb6ytlm7M

[Brad Peters · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant analysis of how our nation’s liberal democracy has eroded over its lifespan. Hunter is incredibly smart and his insights pull from history, law, philosophy and sociology along with a hefty dose of common sense and observation. Really well done.

[Steve Adkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably an important book but a hard slog to read. Highly academic, probably more than is necessary to make a point that politics derives from culture and the decline of one ensures the other.

[Brooke · Rating 3 out of 5]

FINALLY THEY LET ME OUT OF MY CAGE

[Sharla · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mostly skimmed this for a reading group

[Mike Fendrich · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has made me rethink my 5 star reviews in the past. This is a 5 star book. A must read.

[William Schlickenmaier · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extraordinary. A book of the year candidate.

[wyclif · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding!

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Democracy and Solidarity is a decent attempt to explain the root causes of the current culture war that embattles America. James Davison Hunter happens to be the source of the term "culture wars", featured in his 1991 book of the same name. This book is largely a history book, with its longest part describing the history from what Hunter terms "America's hybrid-Enlightenment". This concept is crucial to his explanation, describing how the Founder's democratic project of the Enlightenment was tempered by Protestant ideals. He describes it more as a feature, rather than a flaw.

Overall I think it was a decent book. It leans academic and at times can be a bit long-winded. I think he presented his history through a lens I hadn't seen before, which made the writing style more palatable. The only critique I'd have on the history is he takes it too fast in the second half of the 20th century. The main history that is not done justice during that time period is the rise evangelicalism. Hunter falsely states that the millennial mindset no longer drives Christians, which I believe is fully false given that at least a third of all Americans take the Bible as literal truth. This may not seem important on the surface, but it's a huge factor in the rise of irrational thought and behavior by the American public.

Now for my real criticisms. Hunter leaves out a lot to make his thesis work: that democracy works through solidarity and that we no longer have it. It's a partial history. We only ever had solidarity by excluding marginalized groups throughout history. He touches on these groups throughout, as well as their struggles to be included, yet does not to justice to the fact that one side of the culture war literally seeks to remove the other side from existence. He falls into that all-too-familiar trap of trying to appear neutral, which in itself is a bias if it prevents you from seeing the full story. The result is he treats both sides largely as equal contributors in our current culture wars, DESPITE one side having fully abandoned truth, reason, facts, science, and a general commitment to the public good. The only solidarity we have ever had in this country was because we excluded women, Black people, and others from full democratic participation. The culture wars we have now only erupted AFTER everyone was included. This leads to the second gaping hole in his theory: that these culture wars were not as inevitable as he portrays.

While the conditions were brewing for culture wars for decades, they only became activated by intentional actions by Republicans. The first step was transforming their party to ride on racial resentment from the Civil Rights Era. Hunter completely leaves that fact out. And while he mentions histories from the 90s involving Newt Gingrich, he completely ignores the fact that right-wing think tanks did tremendous amounts of research to figure out the best way to ignite a culture war through the introduction of intentional wedge issues. Gingrich was the mouthpiece, but this was backed by wealthy, rightwing libertarians and the plan was disseminated throughout the Republican Party. This is where that missing evangelical history comes in. These think tanks intentionally targeted the most ignorant Americans, crafting wedge issues that would entirely capture voters based on their ressentiment. Hunter talks a about ressentiment at length, but fails to paint a full picture of what truly happened to try to play the "both sides" card.

The other thing that is almost entirely absent is the inclusion of analysis from an evolutionary psychology and sociobiology perspective. What makes a book like Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind so good is that Haidt includes evolutionary psychology as part of his framework for describing the cultural divide among Americans. Hunter leaves this out, portraying culture as something that stands on its own without discussing the origin of it.

Regardless of these critiques, I do still think this book is worth reading (if you don't mind a 400-page academic work). While I disagreed with Hunter on many things, I found many of my viewpoints challenged in a good way, prompting me to think further on them. I don't think this is the best analysis at explaining America's cultural divide, but I certainly do think it's a worthwhile contribution in providing a fuller picture.

[Rob Franks · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I was working in Dubai I met a Brit with a PhD in Political Science. Brilliant guy, super well-read. We correspond maybe once a year, once every two years, in long semi-rambling emails. In his most recent one, he theorized that The Iron Law of Oligarchy (Michels 1915) might explain the current political crisis / situation in the U.S.

British guy was always put together and proper. He had the accent of a posh Londoner or Southern, coastal Brit, which probably lended him some authoritative bonafides in my mind. Ok, "oligarchy is inevitable in large and complex governmental systems, and that makes the populous peeved." That certainly could explain a few things, though only if one viewed American politics through a strictly economic lens. I'm not averse to that kind of reading; I think Chris Hedges is more or less correct when he says that, in modern-day American, the choice lies between corporatism and oligarchy. But since politics isn't solely about economic interests, an analytical counterweight is needed.

After reading this book, from James Davison Hunter, I can confidently say, “A political theory mapped onto the United States whose thesis is wholly divorced from religion is bound to fall flat.” (Michel perhaps addressed religion in his book, so if I’m painting him with too broad of a brush in that regard or by being reductive with my analysis, apologies.)

Hunter argues that politics is downstream from culture, which is itself downstream from religion. But there are other streams of entirely different ilks in America, too, and…It’s complicated.

This is an intellectual history of the United States that takes you from the shared assumptions, values, and imaginaries of early American (white male) culture-makers, to the fragmentation we see in our politics today. To say that this book is simply prescient would be to undersell Hunter’s farsightedness. (He’s been writing about the culture wars since the 90s.)

If you want to make sense of the contemporary political climate, read this book. I took my time. The author had already tired me out by the early 2000s. Too much reality; too much truth.

The ending doesn’t quite stick the landing, but still: easily a 5 star book.